"Conspiracy theories,"

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting logic there.

I've done enough research on conspiracy theories to know it's not worth arguing over. You either believe or you do not. Dismissing them is not an admission of belief.

Evidently every thread is a debate. Giving an opinion or staying open minded seems to be looked down upon. If you stay neutral, you will still basically be called stupid by one side or the other.

If one is open-minded to rubbish but not to evidence that goes against rubbish thinking, then he's not really open-minded. And there is no real debate when it comes to conspiracy theories just as there are not real debates when it comes to flat-earthism. Some people seem to think conspiracy theories are just another political point of view among many. It's not.

Misleading. Even if conspiracies do happen (and they do happen all the time), conspiracy theories never turn out to be true.

Nothing wrong with being neutral. I would say iam some what neutral also. I just have the intelligence and experience to know the kind of people Iam talking with and who is a deep thinker or a idiotic lunatic.

I believe most of the conspiracies are patently absurd, but there are some interesting things connected specifically to 9/11 . I think The American's for a New Century connection with Cheney, as well as how immoral the Muslims who flew into the towers, as well how classified actual 9/11 material was in the 9/11 Commission make me wonder, as well as Clinton saying he warned Bush of a potential attack.

now as far as Builderbergers, I do think there are off the cuff meetings, but I am not quite convinced it is all it is made up to be. Yes there are rich people who have contempt for the less fortunate and want them crushed , and some who will do anything out of greed, as well as those who want the nation state done away with. But to say they are monolithic would be a dumb statement. Geroge Soros is not Rupert Murdoch, and vice versa, although their want on corporatism seems apparent

So to sum it up, yes there are internationalist, but I don't think it is all cloak and dagger.

I didn't say conspiracy "theories," I said conspiracy "stuff" implying the researching we do in trying to figure out the ones that happen to be true---and why conspiracies happened in the first place and the motives others had to commit them.

As far as "conspiracy theories never turn out to be true," you need to straighten out websites like:
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/0 ... e-true.htm
and get them to remove such nonsense.

For those who cant be bothered to read the link, lets looks at one of them:-

"

Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up a U.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years."

So, it has been revealed that Elements of the American administration were quite happy to sacrifice Americans in order to get the excuse to start a war.

What sounds more credible re 911, that Elements of the American administration bought a couple of white elephant buildings that would have cost a fortune to repair or demolish, ensure them against terrorism for 7 billion dollars, blow then up to get the excuse for countless wars against Islam and oil rich countries,

or

For Muslims to encite the West to come to their lands and kill their woman and children and take control of their countries and demonise Islam and the name of their God?

"Oh look, there's a hornets nest, lets poke it with a stick and get stung!"

If conspiricists could actually prove anything, they would have done so already. Instead, they post seemingly endless arguments about what constitutes legitimate evidence.

However, on the outrageously miniscule chance that there might actually be a real "conspiracy" I am asking those who have a favorite "theory" to answer the following questions. Avoidance, Evasions, and attacking the questions (or the questioner) will be further evidence that their so-called "theory" is complete and utter nonsense. No videos or external links, please.

1.0.0 HUMAN & MATERIAL RESOURCES

1.1.0 How large is the supposed conspiracy?

1.2.0 How many people are part of this conspiracy?

1.3.0 Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?

1.4.0 What infrastructure and resources does it need?

1.5.0 How much time and money did it take and where did this money come from?

2.0.0 GAIN & PROFIT

2.1.0 Explicitly who gains what from the conspiracy and for what price?

2.1.1 If it is an old conspiracy - who gains what from maintaining it?

2.1.2 Is this the easiest way of gaining it?

2.1.3 If not, why was it chosen over the easiest way?

3.0.0 SECRECY & SECURITY

3.1.0 How likely is the supposed conspiracy to be covered up if has gone on a long time?

3.2.0 If there are thousands of conspirators, and the conspiracy has gone on for decades, why have none defected?

3.2.1 Why have none of them leaked the story?

3.2.2 If many conspirators are dead, why have none of them told the truth on their deathbeds, or in their wills?

4.0.0 ORGANIZATION & PLANNING

4.1.0 How do they recruit new members?

4.2.0 How do they keep track of membership?

4.3.0 If there are many thousands of conspirators, how are they organized?

4.4.0 Where are the secret conferences held?

4.5.0 If they are organized through known channels or entities, how do they keep non-members who work there from uncovering the conspiracy?

5.0.0 INVOLVEMENT

5.1.0 If the US government is running a global conspiracy, why have the French, Russian, or Chinese intelligence agencies never revealed it? (NOTE: If all intelligence agencies are involved, start over with section 2.0.0)

5.1.1 If they have, when and where did they do so?


Well? What are you all waiting for?

Why not start by asking the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations how they determined their finding in 1978 when they said, The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.

Good point Fnord, if conspiracy theorists cannot answer all of your questions, it proves they are wrong because for a "conspiracy" to be known, you have to know every last detail else you are wrong on everything.

Let me help you out by adding a few more questions that have to be known for a conspiracy theory to be true.

What are the conspirators names?
Where do they live?
What did they do last night?
What did they spend the money on?
What night do they meet on?
What is the password?

Regarding your point 3.1.0 whenever somebody uncovers it, they are called a "conspiracy theorist"

Point 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, same answer as above really, lots of people have leaked such but the mainstream media don't tend to reveal it, you would have to go to "conspiracy sites to learn such", some are then put in prison for their troubles for breaking the Official Secrets act, by the time they come out they dress as a Woman and claim to be Jesus so something has been done to them to ensure nobody believes them.

Another such is hiding in Russia at the moment, maybe you heard of him?
But unless you know all your bullet points about the possibly thousands of NSA operatives that were involved, it cannot be true can it.

The phrases "... on the basis of available evidence ..." and "... probably ..." are weasel-words that water down the conclusion.

Unfortunately, no one has so far been able to describe any alleged conspiracy in specific terms of:

• Human & Material Resources
• Gain & Profit
• Secrecy & Security
• Organization & Planning
• Involvement

I posted the relevant list a few posts back. Why don't you try to answer the questions? Please provide actual evidence, and not just more questions. Ranting YouTube videos, while entertaining, have provided no such evidence.

Easy. They are using a neutral broad definition of the term. The conspiracy theories that we have come to know thanks to conspiracists have certain defining patterns to them that warrant them to be placed in a separate category from other legitimate views and investigations of actual conspiracies that have actual evidence pointing to them and not brought into existence via paranoia.

But if they want to call those listed in the site "conspiracy theories", let's contrast them with the vast number of conspiracy theories that never turn out to be true and note how large the ratio is in favor of the unverified.

Also, note how none of those listed "conspiracy theories" actually give one iota of support for the conspiracy theories being argued here.

Conspiracy by whom? Did you ever thought to ask that question to yourself and do some research?



http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/se ... ee-report/

Well, I guess I have saved myself some money by not pre-ordering that Roger Stone book on "The Man that Killed Kennedy" for my Kindle along with other hokey books about a possible conspiracy against Kennedy. Instead, I am reading for free The Warren Commission. I know I can trust that to be accurate. And I don't think there is any conspiracy nonsense in the Warren Commission. I am glad I visited here this evening to learn that conspiracy theories are never true. My bank account is glad too. Hey, I know what. I think there is a conspiracy theory at work after all. By placing the idea of "could be a conspiracy" into gullible people's minds, it causes gullible people to buy nonsense conspiracy books on virtually anything---thus bringing in dollars into the book market. I might try to write one myself.

And as far as "Did I research the 1978 findings?" No, I didn't. Should I? I mean after all that was a government committee at work. I should be able to believe what the government tells me. Shouldn't I? And they said it was a probable conspiracy even after saying it wasn't certain groups they named. But they still said it was a "probable conspiracy" while admitting they didn't know by whom. If they can't figure out by whom, how could I? I know "probable" isn't an absolute, but "probable" does imply that, and what does it mean if the government isn't truthful with us? Their findings in 1978 was that it was probably a conspiracy.

Oh no. I am mixed up now. The Warren Commission doesn't imply conspiracy because they said Oswald acted alone. And then in 1978 they said it was a probable conspiracy. But they can't say by whom. And although there are various groups and governments they said it wasn't, members of those groups could have acted together to assassinate Kennedy. Whoa. Is something amiss here?

Last edited by glider18 on 05 Oct 2013, 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.